Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!fts1!atronx!rwm
From: rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CALL FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION: Split the c.s.a group more?
Message-ID: <51731.655797309@atronx.UUCP>
Date: Fri Oct 12 23:55:09 1990
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga
In-Reply-To: limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli)

In article <3378@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
> You realize, don't you, that splitting up the groups won't make it easier
> to keep up with, it will end up being worse, as each and every group will
> generate MORE postings, rather than less. So each supbgroup will have as
> much traffic as comp.sys.amiga does now. :-)

In a message posted on 12 Oct 90 17:55:01 GMT,
    limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) wrote:

TL>That is EXACTLY what the result of this current strategy will be.

The thing is, this is good.  People will then be able to discuss the things
that they are interested in. Let's face it, not everyone is interested in 
every topic that is being discussed.  I myself was also quite glad that 
the Games group was formed, as I myself had absolutely NO interest in reading
about the different games. I'm also thinking that a .newusers group might
be a good idea for those people that have JUST purchased their machine, and
seem to be missing some information. 

  Anyway, as long as we don't go overboard in defining TOO many groups, I'm
all for any changes.

(P.S.  I do think a .multimedia would be better than a .graphics,.video,
.music, .soundeffects separately)


---
  Opinions expressed in this message are my Own.  My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.

  Russell McOrmond   rwm@atronx.UUCP   {fts1,alzabo}!atronx!rwm 
  FidoNet 1:163/109  Net Support: (613) 230-2282
  Amiga-Fidonet Support  1:1/109